Calif. City Will Fine Couple $500 For Not Watering Brown Lawn, State Will Fine’em $500 If They Do

Consumerist ^ | July 18, 2014

[SMGFan]

When you’re in a steady relationship, communication is clear. Because when mom says to do one thing, and dad says another, the kids get really confused. Such is the case in California, where the state has issued rules for homeowners to conserve water in the midst of extreme drought, with fines of $500 per day or violating those guidelines, but one city is threatening to fine a couple $500 — unless they water their lawn.

[SMGFan]

take a bath in the tub, use that water? use certain dish water you don't let down drain. Divert certain laundry water?

[MrB]

And it’s neither one’s business as to whether you water your lawn or not.

[skeeter]

I’d see if one of em would be willing to lower the fine to $400.00 and go with them.

[Red Badger]

Put in Astroturf................

[blackdog]

The US Government DOD requires certain types of electrical enclosures for military use to be tin plated to a Mil-Spec.

The EPA mandates that that type of tin plating cannot be done. So each job you do (usually one to five enclosures) you price into the job the $200,000 EPA fine. So you charge $200,550 each, for a $550.00 item.

The government says that's okeedokee.

[Stosh]

It’s California - dig up the lawn and plant marijuana and nobody will bother you (well, maybe the local dealers).

[BitWielder1]

Put down some plastic fake turf. It's green and does not need water.
It's California, who cares if something isn't real.

[DJ MacWoW]

Free Republic
Exposing Marxist Plans Daily

Please Donate!

[LucianOfSamasota]

Its all about equality and fairness, right?

$500 either way - that’s equal!

Someone takes what they did not earn from the one who did earn it - that’s the new definition of ‘fair’, right?

[Fledermaus]

Out of control, unaccountable bureaucrats need to die.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html

The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you're in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails. For example, if a federal regulation prohibits the use of medical marijuana, but a state regulation allows it, the federal law prevails.

[C210N]

Maybe he could just collect rainwater and irrigate from that...

... if he doesn't mind staying at hotel graybar for a few weeks...

[ScottinVA]

All I can say is.. FReepers in Cali, I don’t know how you survive the rampant insanity out there, but God bless you for doing it. Managing to NOT go bonkers is a major accomplishment. You have my highest respect.

[WayneS]

Okay.

But this is conflict between state and local law.

[WayneS]

OR, the state and local governments could entirely remove themselves from exercising ANY control whatsoever over the lawn watering practices of its citizens.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Same principle. State law supersedes local law.

[Rastus]

Do it the Wernher Von Braun way: cover the yard with concrete and paint it green.

[Gen.Blather]

Astroturf. I always thought lawns a colossal waste of time.

[Joe 6-pack]

Wonder what the fine is for peeing outside?

[ican'tbelieveit]

proves it is really about the revenue not the environment.